I think the churchian elite would reject Jesus joining them.

Posted on By Chris Gale

Donald Sensing linked to this, and so did Dalrock, but they missed the key point. The elite of a liberal Methodist denomination (The connectional table) wants to dissolve connectivity and church discipline because tolerance. But they quoted the wrong part.

proxy

The correct part to quote is this: these liberals would reject Christ.

And in regard to the “we think that this will allow everyone to still be at the table” in our church, I’m afraid not. It won’t for example, allow Jesus to sit at our table who told us quite directly and explicitly that marriage is an act where God brings a man and woman together in a one flesh union that can turn men and women into husbands and wives with the potential to become fathers and mothers through that one flesh union between them. Gay marriage has no such possibilities. Jesus also was equally clear that if one is not gifted to be part of a heterosexual monogamous marriage then the other option was indeed celibacy in singleness, which is exactly what being a eunuch for the Kingdom implies (see Mt. 19)! Not coincidentally, this very passage of Scripture is the basis of our social principle about ‘fidelity in marriage, and celibacy in singleness’.

I’m afraid that the historical Jesus himself would be quite ashamed of the Connectional Table for this short-sighted and unBiblical piece of guidance in preparation for the General Conference. What is equally problematic is that a pronouncement like this a year before General Conference can only prejudice the tone and character of the discussion going forward and especially in Portland a year from now. I would remind us all that currently only the General Conference speaks for all of us, and only its decisions are binding on the whole church. If we were in fact to enact this very recommendation, it would cease to be true that only the General Conference, and only once every four years, can speak for us in important matters such as marriage or ordination. Farewell not only connectionalism, but farewell as well to both the Biblical standards of marriage and for ordination (‘an elder must be the husband of one wife’– see the Pastorals), and farewell to what John Wesley himself said on these matters in his little treatise ‘Thoughts on Celibacy’.

So to be correct the elite want us to abandon our saviour. May this never be. Do not join the elite. Do not be them. Do not be like them.

4 thoughts on “I think the churchian elite would reject Jesus joining them.”

  2. Not exactly a new situation to my way of thinking.

    Today we have conflicts with Churchian’s – Back in Jesus’s time, he and John the Baptist, with Pharisees and other holier than thou and missing the point types.

  3. Thanks for the link.

    Here is a pertinent article. But since it is published by the AFA, if any of us cite it we will dismissed as haters. You know the drill. Nonetheless, some good points: “Yes, Jesus Did Talk About Homosexuality.”

    I have read the link, and it is the older and correct teaching on the meaning of porneia, or uncleanness. The ancients noted that peversity was not exclusively homosexual, nor those who had sex with men averse to also having sex with women: they had societies such as the greeks that praised pederasty. What worries me is that it is seen by those in the UMC as “hatey”.

  4. At first, I thought the Twitter pictures were cosplayers. In pixelated form, they look like Jedi.

    Frankly, I’d find them more honest if they claimed to be Jedi.

    But then they would neither have the form of religion nor the power thereof. At present they delude themselves they have the power

Comments are closed.